Karnataka High Court
Mr Vinod Krishna Murthy vs State By Cowlbazar P.S on 22 August, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101724 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. VINOD KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT D. NO.714,
3RD BLOCK, 8TH STAGE,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-79.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANTH MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
S.S. BAWAKHAN AND SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE BY COWLBAZAR P.S
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DR. SHASHIKALA D/O. DIWAKAR GOUDA,
48 YEARS,
YASHAVANT RESIDING AT SVG COLONY,
NARAYANKAR
INFANTRI ROAD, BELLARY,
KARNATAKA-583101
Location:
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY THE
COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME
NO.92/2024 DATED 01.06.2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 354(D), 504, 506 AND 384 OF THE IPC, 1860, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE COURT OF 2ND ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION
AND JMFC AT BALLARI I.E., ANNEXURE-A.
-2-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CAV ORDER
The accused has filed this petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to
quash the complaint and the FIR registered by
Cowlbazaar Police Station, Ballari, in Crime
No.92/2024 dated 01.06.2024 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 354D, 504, 506
and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as the 'IPC', for short).
2. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint
against the petitioner and the same came to be
registered in Crime No.92/2024 of Cowlbazaar Police
Station, Ballari, for the offences punishable under
Sections 354D, 504, 506 and 384 of IPC. The said
FIR and complaint are sought to be quashed in the
present petition.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, the learned senior counsel for respondent
-3-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1.
4. The learned senior counsel for the
petitioner would contend that respondent No.2 has
borrowed money from the petitioner from time to
time and when the petitioner asked repayment of the
same, a false complaint came to be lodged against
the petitioner. The alleged incident took place on
23.05.2024 but the complaint is filed on 01.06.2024.
There is delay in filing the complaint. The delay
itself indicates that there is introduction of coloured
version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a
concocted story as a result of deliberations and
consultation. The said delay itself creates serious
doubt on the veracity of the complaint. On that
point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sugurappa @ Sugurayya Swami and other s v. State
of Karnataka decided on 03.08.2023:NC:2023:KHC-
K:6123. He contends that the petitioner has now
filed a civil suit for recovery of money against
-4-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
respondent No.2 and it is pending in O.S.
No.4718/2024 on the file of the learned City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said aspect
clearly indicates that a civil dispute has been given a
cloak of criminal offence which requires to be
quashed. On that point, he placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naresh Kumar
and another v The State of Kar natka and Another 1.
He contends that even on perusal of the averments
of the complaint, the only allegation is that, over
phone, the petitioner alleged to have threatened
respondent No.2 and demanded money. The said
demand of money by the petitioner is the amount
due by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. He
submits that the statement of bank account of the
petitioner itself shows that the petitioner has
transferred Rs.26,38,600/- to respondent No.2 on
different dates from the year 2021 to 2023. He
contends that apart from that there are some
business transaction between the petitioner and
1
2024 INSC 196
-5-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
respondent No.2. As it is a phone conversation, it
will not attract offence under Section 354D of IPC
and there are no ingredients made out to attract
offences under Sections 384, 504 and 506 of IPC.
On these grounds, he prayed to quash the FIR and
the complaint registered against the petitioner.
5. The learned senior counsel for respondent
No.2 would contend that the averments of the
complaint itself indicate that the petitioner has made
phone call and threatened respondent No.2 stating
that he will send goondas to her clinic to attack her
and to rape her and abused her in filthy language
and gave her life threat and also demanded
Rs.41,00,000/-. The said averments itself attract
the ingredients of offences under Sections 354D, 504
and 506 of IPC. He contends that, even offence
under Section 354 of IPC is not complete but there
is an attempt which attracts cognizable offence
under Section 511 of IPC. He contends that the civil
dispute, by way of filing a suit, is subsequent to the
date of complaint and it is filed only to overcome the
-6-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
complaint and the FIR registered against the
petitioner. Even the petitioner has filed a suit
against respondent No.2 for defamation and claiming
damages. He contends that respondent No.2 has
transferred Rs.9,98,000/- on 22.03.2021 and
Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.05.2021 to the petitioner. The
petitioner has not issued any demand notice either
prior to filing of the suit or prior to filing of
complaint by respondent No.2. The averments of
the complaint make out ingredients of cognizable
offence. Therefore, there are no grounds for
quashing. With this, he prayed to dismiss the
petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel, I have
carefully gone through the averments of the
complaint, FIR and other material placed on record.
7. On perusal of the averments of the
complaint, there is acquaintance between the
petitioner and respondent No.2 since the year 2020
with regard to commencing Startup Health Care
company. The averments in the complaint also
-7-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
indicate that respondent No.2 has now shifted to
Ballari and residing with her parents. There is no
averment in the complaint regarding respondent
No.2 lending money by way of bank transfer to the
petitioner. There is also no averment with regard to
any of the business transactions between the
petitioner and respondent No.2.
8. As per the averments of the complaint, the
incident had occurred on 23.05.2024 but the
complaint came to be filed on 01.06.2024 i.e. on
the 10 t h day after the date on which she received
phone call from the petitioner. There is no averment
made in the complaint explaining the cause for the
delay in filing the complaint. The Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Sugurappa's case (supra) has
observed thus:
" 7. A perusal of t he material on record goes
to s how t hat the alleged i ncident t ook plac e on 12-
5-2020 at about 2:00 p.m. and t he F.I.R. was
lodged on 22-5 -2020, without of feri ng any possibl e
explanati on. The Hon'bl e S upreme C ourt i n t he
cas e of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V.
-8-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
MADH USUDHAN RAO reported in (2008) 15 S CC
582 at paragraph No. 30 held as under:
"30. Time and agai n, t he object and
import anc e of prompt lodgi ng of the firs t
informati on report has been hi ghli ght ed.
Dela y in l odgi ng the first i nformation repor t,
more oft en t han not, results in
embellishment and exaggeration, which is a
creatur e of an afterthought . A delayed
report not only gets bereft of advantage of
sp ontaneity, the danger of the i nt roduc tion
of a c ol our ed version, an exaggerated
account of the i nc ident or a c oncocted st ory
as a res ult of deliberati ons and
consultations, als o creeps in, ca sting a
seri ous doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is
essential that the delay i n lodgi ng t he report
shoul d be s atisf act orily explai ned."
9. There are civil disputes and business
transactions between the petitioner and respondent
No.2. The delay in lodging the First Information
Report, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Andhr a Prade sh v. Madhusudhan Rao 2
results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is
a creature of an afterthought. Therefore, a serious
doubt arises on the veracity of the averments made
in the complaint. It appears that there is
introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated
account of the incident or a concocted story as a
2
(2008) 15 SCC 582
-9-
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
result of deliberations and consultation. Therefore,
it is essential that the delay in lodging the report
should be satisfactorily explained. In the case on
hand, the delay has not been explained at all much
less satisfactory explanation. The amount said to
have been demanded by the petitioner, as stated in
the complaint, is the amount said to be due by
respondent No.2 to the petitioner which he
transferred to the account of respondent No.2
through his bank account. The said averments in
the complaint regarding demand of money, which
amounts to attraction of offence under Section 384
of IPC is not the amount demanded to extort money
but the demand is of the amount due to him.
10. The alleged incident which has taken place
is through phone call between the petitioner and
respondent No.2. There was no immediate threat to
respondent No.2, as the petitioner is residing in
Bengaluru and respondent No.2 is residing in Ballari
to attract the offence under Section 504 of IPC.
Mere expression of any words without any intention
- 10 -
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
to cause alarm to the complainant or to make him
to do or omit to do any act, is not sufficient to bring
the act within the definition of criminal intimidation.
Therefore, in the instant case, even the ingredients
of Section 506 of IPC are not made out against the
petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kunti and another v. State of Uttar Prade sh and
another 3, has observed thus:
" 11. In Vijay K umar Ghai v. St ate of W.B.,
one of us, (Kri shna Murari J.) observ ed i n
reference t o earlier decisions as under : (S CC pp
139-40, pa ras 24-25)
"24. This Court in G.Sagar Suri v . Stat e of
U.P. obser ved that it is the duty and
obli gation of the criminal court to exercise a
great deal of ca ution in iss ui ng t he process ,
particularly when mat ers are ess entially of
civil nat ure.
25. This Court has time and agai n
ca uti oned ab out converti ng p urely civil
disp utes i nt o cri minal cases . This C ourt in
Indian Oil Corpn. Noticed the pr eval ent
impressi on that civil law remedi es are tim e
consumi ng and do not adequately protec t t he
interests of lenders/ creditors. The C ourt
fur ther observed that : (Indian Oi l Corpn.
SCC p. 749, para13)
'13. ...Any ef f ort to s ettle civil disputes
and claims which do not i nvolve a ny
criminal off enc e, by applyi ng pressur e
t hrough crimi nal prosecution should be
deprec ated and di scouraged.'"
3
(2023) 6 SCC 109
- 11 -
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
11. As there is demand of money due by the
petitioner to respondent No.2, first information came
to be lodged against him by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution, which should be
deprecated and discouraged as observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Nare sh Kumar (supra) has observed thus:
" 6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court
recognized that although the inherent powers of a High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High
Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal
proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This
is what was held:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be
cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and
only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure ends
of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a
criminal offence or not depends upon the nature
of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not
has to be judged by the High Court. A civil
transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a
civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted
as has happened in this case, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court."
- 12 -
Crl. P. No.101724/2024
Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra),
this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P.
(2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal
proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon
of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State
of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90,
relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again
held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil
nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such
disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."
12. On perusal of the averments of the
complaint, it is clear that, respondent No.2 in order
to prevent the case to be filed against her by the
petitioner for recovery of money, which is of civil
nature, has given the colour of criminal offence.
Under the circumstances, the FIR and the complaint
registered against the petitioner requires to be
quashed.
13. In the result, the following
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The FIR and the complaint registered against the petitioner in
- 13 -
Crl. P. No.101724/2024Cowlbazaar Police Station, Ballari, Crime No.92/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 504, 506 and 384 of IPC are quashed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE kmv CT:CNB